"The man is still trying to find his feet.Once he is taking some good shots and has learn't the strengths and weaknesses of his equipment then it would be worth his while to start experimenting with focus stacking.It is not a magic bullet solution so not an automatic choice to solve all depth of field issues."

I totally agree. The emphasis some people, especially here in the Lu-la forums, put on exotic techniques and tools is far out of balance with their actual viability in simply making good photos to start with. Focus stacking is really one of those last resort solutions. I'm glad I know how to do it, and have the tools to do it but only turn to when all else fails.

I totally agree. The emphasis some people, especially here in the Lu-la forums, put on exotic techniques and tools is far out of balance with their actual viability in simply making good photos to start with. Focus stacking is really one of those last resort solutions. I'm glad I know how to do it, and have the tools to do it but only turn to when all else fails.

I think you can probably extend that idea sideways: in my own view, simple is usually best, and tricks for trick's sake is a PITA that some might find pleasant but that I'd rather avoid if I can. That's sometimes just part of the digi game: this can be done, so it has to be done or something is wrong with the shooter. I am happy to continue along in my innocence, taking what pleasures I can from pictures and trying not to exchange that for challenges. What's with these people who claim to like challenges? Hell's teeth, I want life to go as smoothly as it possibly can! Leave battles to warriors; protect your heart and nerves!

Focus Fixer it is old and doesn't work with 64 bit programs but I like the resultsI'm still searching for a better replacement

Hi Marc,

You can always try RawTherapee, even on e.g. a TIFF input instead of Raw. It supports a decent implementation of the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution method which does quite well with regular (unsharpened) images (and not only images from the Hubble Space Telescope where it was used by NASA to recover from an optical design flaw).

Topaz Labs have an InFocus plug-in, but it needs some more work to protect inexperienced users from generating too many artifacts.

I still use the 32-bit FocusMagic plugin, and it does a great job but future technical support seems unsure.

You can always try RawTherapee, even on e.g. a TIFF input instead of Raw. It supports a decent implementation of the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution method which does quite well with regular (unsharpened) images (and not only images from the Hubble Space Telescope where it was used by NASA to recover from an optical design flaw).

Topaz Labs have an InFocus plug-in, but it needs some more work to protect inexperienced users from generating too many artifacts.

I still use the 32-bit FocusMagic plugin, and it does a great job but technical support seems unsure.

I would. I would call it focus stacking + pano stitching, which is a step further. OTOH 3 focus slices may not be enough in many cases. But these are details. - I don't quite understand what you find 'narrow' about the term/track 'focus stacking'. My idea was that the *term* (rather than a description) when googled would quickly lead the OP to the subject.